Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    UK Trade Union Boss Warns PM Johnson of ‘Citizen’s Arrest’ for Suspending Parliament

    UK Trade Union Boss Warns PM Johnson of ‘Citizen’s Arrest’ for Suspending Parliament

    Angry remarks come after top Scottish court rules parliament suspension “unlawful.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1d9YRRWqw

    A leading UK trade union boss warned Prime Minister Boris Johnson of “citizen’s arrest” for suspending the parliament ahead of the October 31 Brexit deadline.

    Len McCluskey, head of the Labour party’s largest affiliated trade union UNITE, made the comments after a Scottish court ruled the recess decision “unlawful.”

    The angry remarks by McCluskey come amid a series of assaults on prominent pro-Brexit and right-wing figures.

    Earlier this year, Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, Islam critic Tommy Robinson, and other prominent leaders faced attacks by far-left activists. The leftist assailants were lauded and cheered by the British Liberal commentators and Brexit opponents. Johnson and members of his cabinet have also faced hostile agitators on the streets as the UK heads towards Brexit.

    British newspaper The Independent covered the remarks made by McCluskey and other union bosses :

    Boris Johnson has been warned he could face a “citizen’s arrest” by a senior union boss after the prime minister’s decision to suspend parliament was ruled unlawful by Scotland’s highest court. (…) Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, told Sky News: “It is quite extraordinary what the Scottish courts have ruled.

    “My advice to the prime minister is don’t go up to Scotland, you’re liable to face a citizen’s arrest, so he’d best keep in his bunker somewhere in either Eton or Westminster.” (…)

    TSSA [transport workers’ union] leader Manuel Cortes, who backs a second referendum, said the “shameful” prime minister should be behind bars, rather than in Downing Street.

    Underrated by today’s judicial ruling, the UK government has vowed to challenge decision handed down by Scotland’s highest appeals court.

    “We are disappointed by today’s decision, and will appeal to the UK Supreme Court,” the UK Prime Minister’s office said in response to the judgment. Johnson’s aides also questioned the impartiality of Scottish judges, calling them ‘politically biased, the British Daily Telegraph reported.

    The Brexiteers face not only a rigged political system but also a biased judiciary, Telegraph columnist John Longworth suggested. “The Scottish court prorogation ruling shows the anti-Brexit Establishment is hard at work,” Longworth wrote following the Scottish ruling. The “British Establishment” is very apt at “keeping a grip on their privilege,” he added.

    The Irish Times reported today’s court judgment:

    Scottish appeal court judges have declared that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the October Brexit deadline is unlawful.

    The three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, overturned an earlier ruling that the courts did not have the powers to interfere in the UK prime minister’s political decision to prorogue parliament.

    The judges said the prorogation was “improper” and done with “the purpose of stymying parliament”. It was therefore “null and of no effect”.

    Lawyers acting for 75 opposition MPs and peers argued Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was illegal and in breach of the constitution, as it was designed to stifle parliamentary debate and action on Brexit.

    There are still signs that the European Union might blink if Johnson sticks to the October 31 deadline.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel hinted that Brussels might offer Britain a deal even at the last minute. “We still have every chance of getting an orderly (Brexit) and the German government will do everything it can to make that possible – right up to the last day. But I also say we are prepared for a disorderly Brexit,” Mrs. Merkel told the German parliament today.

    The British parliament has voted to delay Brexit if the EU fails to agree to a deal before the October 31 deadline. Johnson called the legislation passed by the parliament a “surrender” document and vowed to push for a no-deal Brexit — if all fails.

    “It’s Jeremy Corbyn’s surrender bill,” Johnson declared in the House of Commons on Tuesday. “It means running up the white flag, and I want to make clear to everybody in this house there are no circumstances in which I will accept anything like it.” He reiterated that: the UK “will leave on October 31 in all circumstances. There will be no further pointless delays.”

    Johnson’s motion calling for a snap election in mid-October failed to get the required two-thirds majority before the parliament entered a five-week suspension on Monday. The opposition Labour party has threatened a no-confidence vote to oust Johnson’s two-month-old government when the House reconvenes on October 14.

    If the Labour party manages to topple the government, this could pave the way for a Corbyn-led caretaker government or force an early election.

    Johnson and his Conservatives appear unprepared to face a general election at this time. The Conservative base has shifted markedly towards Nigel Farage’s newly-formed Brexit Party, as the outcome of the May 2019 EU elections showed.

    Farage’s offer to “put country before party” and withdraw all Brexit Party candidates in favor of Tory contestants has gone unanswered by the Conservative leadership. The Conservative establishment despises Farage’s brand of “populism” and his working-class support base. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, the prospect of an election pact with Brexit Party is “dead in the water.” The Conservative elite does not view Farage as a “fit and proper person” to agree with on government issues.

    This elitist snobbery on the Right might prove fatal if the Conservative party decided to go it alone in the next elections. After three years of fruitless deliberations, the ruling Conservatives have miserably failed at delivering Brexit, thus losing the trust of their political base. Only a united Right has a fighting chance against the broad-based Left-Liberal alliance rallying under the EU’s banner.

    [Cover image via YouTube]

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     1
    2smartforlibs | September 11, 2019 at 2:48 pm

    I guess your DOJ cant get you 7 ways form Sunday. Like Chuck You told Trump

    “This elitist snobbery on the Right might prove fatal if the Conservative party decided to go it alone in the next elections. After three years of fruitless deliberations, the ruling Conservatives have miserably failed at delivering Brexit, thus losing the trust of their political base. ”

    NeverTrumpers / GOPe, UK edition. Like their US counterparts, they’d rather be a Fifth Column than patriots.

    Underrated by today’s judicial ruling

    s/Underrated/Undeterred

    Now I understand why the Scots defeated their own Independence referendum

    This is just another example of the inability of parliamentary-style governments to function in a crisis. Those wishing for a US national popular vote should take note of this.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to fast182. | September 11, 2019 at 3:36 pm

      What on earth has “parliamentary government” (i.e. government by an executive that is responsible to the legislature) got to do with how the president is elected? They are completely unrelated issues.


         
         0 
         
         1
        fast182 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2019 at 4:00 pm

        If the US ever changes to a national popular vote then there won’t be just 3 presidential candidates, there will be 12, which will further split the other races as multiple parties become viable in each state. Eventually, the president will be elected with 27% of the vote, and have to form a governing coalition.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to fast182. | September 11, 2019 at 4:21 pm

          No, he won’t. No matter how he’s elected, he won’t need a coalition (where?) because he’ll have his own mandate. The method of electing the president has no connection at all to responsible government, which is where the need for coalitions comes about.


             
             0 
             
             0
            fast182 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2019 at 4:52 pm

            Ask yourself this: why are there only two political parties in the US? I think it’s because the Electoral College’s state-level winner-take-all approach to presidential elections forces all of the various factions across the country to join together into two, and only two, groups in order to have a chance of winning enough states to win the presidency. And those two organizations becomes the basis of nearly every political race in the country at every level. Change to a national popular vote for the presidency and it becomes much easier for smaller groups to form, further fracturing the electorate. Yes, there would still be only one president for four years, but we’ve seen well the limitations of presidential power without congressional support. Fracture congress into 6 or 8 separate parties and we’ll get something like what we’re witnessing in the U.K.

            Why, it’s almost like it was planned that way.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2019 at 7:51 pm

            The Electoral College has nothing to do with the absence of significant minor parties. A national vote would do nothing to help minor parties form, since they’d still have no chance of winning. The presidency would still be realistically contested only between the two major parties, with the minor parties playing spoiler roles, just like now.

            Consider that the House of Representatives is elected in exactly the same way as the House of Commons. Single-member districts, won by the first past the post. So why are there minor parties in the Commons but not in the US House? Because there aren’t strong regional interests represented by regional parties. In the UK, while in most of the country most people support one of the two major parties, there are areas where a minor party is very strong, strong enough to get more votes than either of the two majors. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the traditional Liberal areas.

            The same thing could easily happen in the US, but didn’t. A Southern Party could easily have formed in the ’50s-’60s, as the Dems moved away from supporting the interests of the local people. There were attempts to do this, that failed, but could easily have succeeded. The Green Party could soon win a few House seats in California. Or if a rift developed between the Black Caucus and the rest of the Dems, they could break off and form their own party, and carry their districts.


             
             0 
             
             0
            GWB in reply to Milhouse. | September 12, 2019 at 12:42 am

            I think a bigger impact was made by the 17th Amendment. It helped kill (or at least stun) states’ sovereignty, and thereby hurt regionalism significantly.


             
             0 
             
             0
            fast182 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2019 at 8:09 pm

            The U.K. is not unique. A parliamentary system is synonymous with numerous political parties, around the world and throughout history. The US is unique with its two party system, and it endures in a very large and diverse country, much larger than the U.K. I stand by what I said, that this is due to the electoral college’s winner-takes-all vote in each state.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 12, 2019 at 1:23 am

            GWB:

            I think a bigger impact was made by the 17th Amendment. It helped kill (or at least stun) states’ sovereignty, and thereby hurt regionalism significantly.

            First of all, it did no such thing. Senators represent the people of their states, just as they always did. The 17th merely stopped state legislative elections from being in effect proxy elections for senator.

            Second, how could the rules for senate elections possibly dissuade anyone from voting for a local candidate for the House? On the contrary, if there were an opportunity for a local party to take root somewhere, having a chance at a senate seat would help it, not hinder it.

            fast182:

            A parliamentary system is synonymous with numerous political parties, around the world and throughout history. The US is unique with its two party system,

            That is just not true. Single-member districts work the same way everywhere. They punish small parties whose support is diffuse, but help parties whose support is concentrated into a small area, where they are in fact large parties. In other words, a party that gets 10% of the vote in every district won’t get any seats; but one that gets 50% in 20% of the districts and nothing in the other 80% will win a fair number of seats. Such parties happened to develop in the UK, Canada, and Australia, but not in the USA. Separating the executive from the legislature in those countries would not affect this at all.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 12, 2019 at 1:24 am

            A lot of people seem to confuse parliamentary government with proportional representation, which does by design encourage small parties. They have nothing to do with each other. The UK does not have PR.


             
             0 
             
             0
            azide999 in reply to Milhouse. | September 13, 2019 at 12:52 am

            FAST182 – I will not pretend to have any real knowledge of politics. However, I will point out that for many many years the UK had effectively a two party system; the US did not stand alone in that. Until perhaps 10 years ago, the main UK parties were Conservative (Thatcher, for example) and later Labour (Blair, for example), and I believe this was the case going back 70 years. While there have been other political parties over those years, they truly have been a minority, with perhaps the Liberal Democrats coming the closest to being a third real contending party.

            Perhaps the main difference is that the UK has many constituencies (650?; each of which elects 1 MP), while the US has 50 states (each of which elects 2 Senators = 2 MPs). I personally equate the commons with the senate and the lords with the judiciary. Therefore there is a greater chance that the commons (senate) will have elected minority parties.

            If one considers the 650 constituencies and the total number for electing a Prime Minister, it is possible that a popular vote would elect a PM, but that a majority in parliament could actually be of an opposing party.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend